I just wanted to clarify several things about the recent issue with some downloads and the fallout that has affected this site since then. Please read this entire post slowly and carefully.

Here in the United States, we have this thing called “copyright”. It enables anyone who creates a creative work to have exclusive rights to their own work for a limited time. This applies to anyone and you if you create anything like a poem, painting, novel, sculpture, song, and so forth. If you would like to keep the enforceability of the copyright on your works, you must take measures to defend your copyright if someone infringes upon your copyright according to the law. This is how the laws work.

Lawyers (though some may disagree) are generally regular people just like everyone else. They go to work every day and do their job. The job of a lawyer is to deal with anything that is put on their desk by their clients. If their clients don’t put things on their desk, the lawyer would much rather do other things like to go home to their families, go to movies, ski, and do all the normal things that everyone else likes to do.

Here is how all of this relates to us: A fan was confused about some Evanescence AMVs found on this site. For some reason, the fan decided to attempt to contact Evanescence and ask if the band had created the videos. Whoever received the message from the fan placed the question on the desk of the band’s lawyer so that they could best answer the fan’s question. The lawyer then asked the band’s licensing department if our site had a license to offer Evanescence AMVs. Since the answer was “no” and the band would like to maintain the enforceability of the copyright on their songs, the lawyer had no choice but to take some kind of action.

The laws concerning copyright in the United States give the copyright holder a wide variety of tools in order to deal with potential copyright infringement. These tools vary in the amount of the severity of action that can be taken. The severity goes from mildly unpleasant to extremely unpleasant for the potential infringer.

The lawyer in our case took (what I believe to be) the minimum action needed to successfully defend their client’s copyright: They asked us nicely to stop. Of all the blows that could have been dealt to this site, this was the nicest one possible under current laws.

During the conversation with the lawyer about the remedy needed, I did ask about the possibility of somehow becoming legitimate by some kind of licensing agreement. Their reply was that there are several large issues for a site like ours to obtain a license due to the nature of our site and the contract with the band. One issue (of many) is that the contract with the band requires the band to approve every use of their songs by third parties. This usually has to deal with movie sound tracks, commercials, and things like that. But in order for our site to receive a license, each and every video would have to be approved by the band themselves. Other issues apply to us by the laws and rules concerning copyright and songs distributed over the internet. (It becomes a big mess really quickly.)

Now let me make this clear: None of the actions taken by the band, label, or their lawyers had anything to do with evil greed, the dis/approval of the artistic value of the fan works available here, publicity the band gains by this site, or anything else along those lines. The entire issue revolves around nothing else but their desire to maintain the enforceability of the copyright on their songs. By having something concerning this site dropped on the desk of the band’s lawyer, they had no choice but to act in a way that protects the copyright of the band according to the law. If nothing appeared on their desk about the site, nothing would have happened. End of story.

I have read about possible boycotts and petitions in various follow-up posts to this issue. If all 5 of you boycotters don’t buy the next Evanescence album because of the band’s desire to keep their copyright strong, you have completely missed the point of all this and will also not have your voices heard.

If a petition or letter of any kind is sent to the band and/or record label, that petition is likely to end up on the desk of the band’s lawyer and they will again be forced to take some kind of action because it is on their desk. This will likely cause much more harm to this site and to the AMV community as a whole than intended by the petition. As in my original post, I strongly ask you to please not attempt to contact the band, label, or anyone else in the music industry about AMVs or this site.

So what can you do? This entire issue revolves around one thing: Laws. There are lots of laws that deal with copyright, fair use, and what people can do with them. In the times we live in now, laws are the highest and most contested battleground there is. If you would like to preserve or expand the rights that you as a normal citizen have under the law, please write and petition the persons that make the laws (here in the United States, this means Congress). There are powerful and well-funded groups on both sides of the copyright/fair use issues. Please support the groups that you agree with as well as make your views know directly as an individual to lawmakers.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding you may have about the purpose and nature of the actions recently taken against this site.

I would just like to know just WHO is the idiot that was sooo stupid as to think the band made the AMVs. I dont really actually want to know, but i just wish they would've used their common sense. The whole evanescence ban IS highly annoying, but luckily enough for me, i already have my two favorite Evanescence AMVs saved on my computer. If this becomes a serious issue, and widespread among websites on the net, im just worried that we may not even HAVE any videos left at all.

God i'd like to get my hands on the brainless idiot that E-mailed Evanescence.

Ratix wrote:I like the part about writing to Congress, and supporting groups in favor of fair use laws. Where could we find information about such groups, and how to contact/support them if we wanted to?

I would say go to your senators website, a simple google would work. Look for the us senate webpage.

As one of the 'boycotters,' I just want to state that my only reason for listening to 'new' music is for amv-making/watching. I'm not about to go telling other people to avoid certain artists. I'm simply not going to go out of my way to listen to their work, because any music I listen to has a chance of being used in an amv. They don't want that and I don't want that, so it's best all around for me to avoid them entirely. If Remedy or one of Creed's songs happens to play on 97.1 (they'd never play Evanescence) I'm not going to change the station. I just won't go looking for the cd so I can use the songs in an amv. The only reason I buy cds is to use songs for amvs. Why wouldn't I stop buying them for these artists? They asked me to stop. I respect that.

Arigatomina wrote:As one of the 'boycotters,' I just want to state that my only reason for listening to 'new' music is for amv-making/watching. I'm not about to go telling other people to avoid certain artists. I'm simply not going to go out of my way to listen to their work, because any music I listen to has a chance of being used in an amv. They don't want that and I don't want that, so it's best all around for me to avoid them entirely. If Remedy or one of Creed's songs happens to play on 97.1 (they'd never play Evanescence) I'm not going to change the station. I just won't go looking for the cd so I can use the songs in an amv. The only reason I buy cds is to use songs for amvs. Why wouldn't I stop buying them for these artists? They asked me to stop. I respect that.

Phade, i'm glad you made the "it's the lawyer's job to do this" clear. A lot of people don't realize this. What i've been saying is that likewise, when this is dropped on the desks of any other band's lawyers, (s)he must do the same thing (at the very least). Then I pose the (rhetorical?) question; "Is it not within proper business procedures for any group such as wind-up records to inform their associates of current legal matters that they have undertaken that they found to be important enough to warrent a Cease and Desist order?" Nobody has answered this yet...

I'm glad that you handeled this so well. As a donator who has supported this site, i know that i can possibly face charges as a contributor to an illegal organization (or i at least suspect this to be true) so I feel indebted to you, as we all should...

BasharOfTheAges wrote:Phade, i'm glad you made the "it's the lawyer's job to do this" clear. A lot of people don't realize this. What i've been saying is that likewise, when this is dropped on the desks of any other band's lawyers, (s)he must do the same thing (at the very least). Then I pose the (rhetorical?) question; "Is it not within proper business procedures for any group such as wind-up records to inform their associates of current legal matters that they have undertaken that they found to be important enough to warrent a Cease and Desist order?" Nobody has answered this yet...

I am not entirely sure, but my guess is that since this is a small group of artists under the label, there is likely just the one attorney (maybe two) working for the whole group. My guess is also that the attorney cannot discuss the goings-on of their clients (the bands/label) to other attorneys because of the attorney-client privilege. This means that lawyers cannot discuss the case with others unless the others are directly involved with the case.

The labels themselves, on the other hand, can discuss with other labels what they have encountered. However, my guess is that labels don’t generally talk with each other that much and also the discussion must land on the desk of a lawyer before action can be taken.

BasharOfTheAges wrote:Phade, i'm glad you made the "it's the lawyer's job to do this" clear. A lot of people don't realize this. What i've been saying is that likewise, when this is dropped on the desks of any other band's lawyers, (s)he must do the same thing (at the very least). Then I pose the (rhetorical?) question; "Is it not within proper business procedures for any group such as wind-up records to inform their associates of current legal matters that they have undertaken that they found to be important enough to warrent a Cease and Desist order?" Nobody has answered this yet...

I am not entirely sure, but my guess is that since this is a small group of artists under the label, there is likely just the one attorney (maybe two) working for the whole group. My guess is also that the attorney cannot discuss the goings-on of their clients (the bands/label) to other attorneys because of the attorney-client privilege. This means that lawyers cannot discuss the case with others unless the others are directly involved with the case.

The labels themselves, on the other hand, can discuss with other labels what they have encountered. However, my guess is that labels don’t generally talk with each other that much and also the discussion must land on the desk of a lawyer before action can be taken.

Again, this is my guess as to how things work. I hope this helps.

Phade.

I didn't actually even consider the lawer in the mater of transfer (because of the attorney client privlege). I was more focused on the relationship between a company and their parent company (then later, the other offshoots to the parent company). Would Sony BGM not get ahold of the goings on of their child companies when lawers get involved? I assume at the very least a memo would go out.

Whether or not that memo gets buried under a mound of paperwork and lost in the seasonal rush is another story entirely though...